In a perfect world, internal controls would be 100% effective once implemented. In reality, organizations needs multiple lines of defense or barriers to guard against the risk that they will not achieve their objectives. The internal audit function is the last of three lines of defense recommended by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) in […]

Do risk, governance, and audit practitioners consider the problem of decisions where insufficient time was taken to obtain the necessary information, consult with all affected parties, and THINK about the options?

No doubt you’ve heard about the debate over a national securities regulator. Maybe you’ve even paid attention a bit. (I believe there was a scuffle recently over a logo or something—and the location of the head office of the proposed regulator?) Anyway, the Federal Government has prepared a Securities Act and handed it over to the Supreme Court to decide whether the feds even have the legal authority to establish a harmonized national regime to govern capital markets.

Despite the rosy picture the CSA paints, I’m not surprised that many organizations are falling short of their governance disclosure obligations. With respect to National Instrument 58-101 – Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices, the CSA found “unacceptable” shortcomings in 55 percent of reviewed organizations’ disclosures, compared to 36 percent in 2007. In this instance, reporting is getting much worse, not better.

When I entered McCarthy Tétrault’s 8th annual disclosure and governance seminar, I expected to be guided on an exhilarating ride through the thrill-a-minute world of lawyering—I mean, governance disclosure sure sounds intriguing, and the TD towers are pretty sexy—but I’ve got to say: it’s time to reassess my confidence in the way movies depict reality…

You’ve probably heard of American Apparel, the Los Angeles-based clothing manufacturer and retailer that’s so popular with the kids these days, they of the semi-controversial billboard advertisements and almost-certainly-controversial CEO Dov Charney…

We reported earlier this year about the perils of bad governance in the case of the Toronto Humane Society. The non-profit organization faced a raid and subsequent investigation after complaints of serious mistreatment of animals, overcrowding, rampant illness and disease, disgusting workplace conditions and generally poor management. The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals removed animals from the premises, confiscated documents, arrested the president and senior management and charged them with animal cruelty and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, and discharged the board of directors and charged them with “non-criminal” animal cruelty.

In late May, Ontario Bill 65, the not-for-profit corporations act, received second reading in the provincial legislature. This is the culmination of several years of consultation with the not-for-profit sector.

When a board of directors, senior staff, volunteers and members of a not-for-profit are marching to the same beat, an organization can do great things and win the admiration of the community at large. But when they fall out of step—for example, when the board loses control of the executive director, or the organization squanders the respect of its members or volunteers—things can go very wrong, very fast.

Of course, you can certainly still run your business as you always have, and wait to see if corporate social responsibility and social media turn out to be passing trends. What’s more, maybe you don’t want to be on the cutting edge of marketing strategy—or don’t need to be. It is absolutely up to you.